New Carnival Announcement regarding Cuba Cruises

[mturturro]

Citing from the news sources ( I have not actually read the govt release) people who had already paid for their trip could still go and be exempt. Since the 6/3 sailing had already left everyone would have been paid in full. This means that it still could have gone( if the news sources are correct). I would have not booked this cruise if it were not for Cuba. It was the only reason I was on the ship. Plus other sources on this site say that the price was inflated because of the CUba destination by ~20-40%.  A 50% refund would be admirable by the company. I have cruised the most with Carnival than any other cruise line. This will be my last  one if amends are not made.

[HUNNY BUN]

1 hour ago, mturturro said:

Citing from the news sources ( I have not actually read the govt release) people who had already paid for their trip could still go and be exempt. Since the 6/3 sailing had already left everyone would have been paid in full. This means that it still could have gone( if the news sources are correct). I would have not booked this cruise if it were not for Cuba. It was the only reason I was on the ship. Plus other sources on this site say that the price was inflated because of the CUba destination by ~20-40%.  A 50% refund would be admirable by the company. I have cruised the most with Carnival than any other cruise line. This will be my last  one if amends are not made.

So, what does everyone think the chances might be that Carnival upgrades, revises or changes their offers of compensation/refund, etc. at this point?  Or are they simply gonna stay as they are?  Just wondering..

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, mturturro said:

Citing from the news sources ( I have not actually read the govt release) people who had already paid for their trip could still go and be exempt. Since the 6/3 sailing had already left everyone would have been paid in full. This means that it still could have gone( if the news sources are correct). I would have not booked this cruise if it were not for Cuba. It was the only reason I was on the ship. Plus other sources on this site say that the price was inflated because of the CUba destination by ~20-40%.  A 50% refund would be admirable by the company. I have cruised the most with Carnival than any other cruise line. This will be my last  one if amends are not made.

The government changed the ban from exempting those already booked and paid for to an IMMEDIATE ban.

[Smatth]

Just to be clear.  It appears to me to be two constituents affected here. Those who have future cruises and those that were on the Sensation when the decision was made to cancel La Havana. It seems to me that the issue has little to do with where the blame lies. I think we all know the answer.  The over-riding issue here is the quality of the corporate response to both groups.  According to industry rags, Cuba cruises were commanding a 20% minimum premium... all the way up to 40-50%.  Those with future cruises have been given three options... those on the Sensation were give no options. I will attempt to address the issue for the latter group from my personal perspective.. YMYV.  Passengers on the Sensation were sent a letter advising us of  the port change and compensation.... I quote:" Since you may have chosen this cruise because of the Havana destination, we are applying a $100 credit to your sign and sail account."  Really? "MAY have chosen?"  Assuming the typical 20% mark-up on Cuba cruises, our cabin paid a minimum $400 premium for Cuba. Right there, credibility wanes. After digesting the letter, I became more enraged and offended that Carnival valued that premium at $100. Then, after hearing about Norwegian's offer to those with cruises in progress (noted above in another post) I actually felt sick and later how pathetic and offensive the inept, greedy corporate response was.  Even MSC offered their passengers a $400 per cabin!  Carnival's response was a hot topic at the Platinum/Diamond reception at the cruise's end.  I have been a loyal Carnival customer... and I, along with many others on the Sensation, feel completely defrauded by some number crunchers in Miami who couldn't give a damn about their customers.  I get it... there will be plenty of first and second time cruisers to fill their boats... why worry about the future repeat cruisers. This response revealed Carnival's true corporate mindset.  It's not a pretty picture.

[Host Carolyn]

Please take this back to the topic at hand, i.e. Carnival cruises affected by the travel ban.  Lots of forums to discuss the politics, finger point etc.  This isn't one of them.  Done really good until today so let's take it back to Carnival's response and debate the politics of US-Cuba relations etc. on a news or political forum

 

In advance, thank you

 

Host Carolyn

Edited June 13, 2019 by Host Carolyn
clarify

[ontheweb]

10 hours ago, Host Carolyn said:

Please take this back to the topic at hand, i.e. Carnival cruises affected by the travel ban.  Lots of forums to discuss the politics, finger point etc.  This isn't one of them.  Done really good until today so let's take it back to Carnival's response and debate the politics of US-Cuba relations etc.

 

In advance, thank you

 

Host Carolyn

It is unfortunately hard to clearly define the line where this becomes about politics when the decision by ALL  the cruise lines came about because of a political decision made not by them. Is it considered political to point that out?

[Luckiestmanonearth]

11 hours ago, Host Carolyn said:

Please take this back to the topic at hand, i.e. Carnival cruises affected by the travel ban.  Lots of forums to discuss the politics, finger point etc.  This isn't one of them.  Done really good until today so let's take it back to Carnival's response and debate the politics of US-Cuba relations etc.

 

In advance, thank you

 

Host Carolyn

 

Amen.  Politics is a hot button topic and ultimately the only result is negative mudslinging between participants.

 

Back to the topic at hand , a question for this thread is what would be a desirable port to stop in place of Cuba that you feel satisfied (must pick one port)

 

 

PS - we have very good friends that are very political and side strongly with one of the political parties, and we remain good friends because we don’t talk about it

Edited June 13, 2019 by Luckiestmanonearth

[tinkr2]

On 6/12/2019 at 8:02 AM, KmomChicago said:

On our last Carnival cruise Princess Cays was cancelled due to being unable to tender in rough seas without killing anyone and we had our port fee and excursion refunded and that’s it. What if Cuba had declared war on us? People debate the safety of the Dominican Republic because of hotels nowhere near the cruise port and WANT some of those itineraries changed. Many Caribbean countries have crime, political issues and occasional or recurring uprisings and instability. 

 

What if if you were flying to Cuba? I presume the flight is cancelled and you’re getting a refund, a nightmare for the airline but not my problem.  Disappointment is definitely disappointing.  Learning how to manage disappointment is tough too. I have a teenager so I realize I often “don’t understaaaaaaaaaaaaand, Mom.” 

 

I am truly sorry for the impact of this situation but feel more sorry about the deep seated anger it has drawn.

Port changes are generally ok. Cuba was a specific itinerary with overnights on old ships. And very expensive compared to a Bahamas cruise. So not the same as skipping a port on a regular cruise bc of high winds.

And airfare already booked was was unaffected.

17 hours ago, ontheweb said:

The government changed the ban from exempting those already booked and paid for to an IMMEDIATE ban.

No the ship moving could have gone. It exempted paid for travel. 

[ontheweb]

5 minutes ago, tinkr2 said:

I follow the news in depth. My posts were all removed bc of too much news. I read the entire statement. It said effective immediately bit then gave exemptions. And NCL went that same day on an existing cruise and did not detour.

I apologize if I confused you with another poster who said he did not follow the news.

 

Could you document that an NCL ship went there after the ban. If Carnival could have actually continued that voyage there, why wouldn't they? It cost them money and possibly even more importantly ill will by diverting the ship from Cuba if they really could have gone.

[monykalyn]

21 hours ago, mturturro said:

Citing from the news sources ( I have not actually read the govt release) people who had already paid for their trip could still go and be exempt. Since the 6/3 sailing had already left everyone would have been paid in full. This means that it still could have gone( if the news sources are correct). I would have not booked this cruise if it were not for Cuba. It was the only reason I was on the ship. Plus other sources on this site say that the price was inflated because of the CUba destination by ~20-40%.  A 50% refund would be admirable by the company. I have cruised the most with Carnival than any other cruise line. This will be my last  one if amends are not made.

 

15 hours ago, Smatth said:

those on the Sensation were give no options

yes this is more about the poor poor poor response of Carnival compared to other lines.

[tinkr2]

I am just on the sun page bc I also had a cruise booked there. Carnival played it safe I am assuming.

[Smatth]

 

On 6/13/2019 at 9:44 AM, tinkr2 said:

I am just on the sun page bc I also had a cruise booked there. Carnival played it safe I am assuming.

 

Correct.  While on the Sensation I referenced the order on the Treasury website. It specifically stated that travel in progress was permitted to proceed.  I am guessing that Carnival's lawyers decided that the risk was high that Cuba may have taken some action either to prevent the ship from docking or leaving the dock?  The letter sent to passenger cabins indicated that travel was immediately prohibited... Not true according to the Treasury web site.   An incredibly poor, short-sighted corporate response, made worse by other lines' responses to the situation.  Shameful!

[SwordBlazer Cruising]

1 hour ago, Smatth said:

 

 

Correct.  While on the Sensation I referenced the order on the Treasury website. It specifically stated that travel in progress was permitted to proceed.  I am guessing that Carnival's lawyers decided that the risk was high that Cuba may have taken some action either to prevent the ship from docking or leaving the dock?  The letter sent to passenger cabins indicated that travel was immediately prohibited... Not true according to the Treasury web site.   An incredibly poor, short-sighted corporate response, made worse by other lines' responses to the situation.  Shameful!

Unless any of us work for the cruise lines, we really do not 100% know the full story. We all finger point ( myself included-I try not too) but in this case this could be a situation where the website for public consumption said one thing, however the conversations back and fourth with the government by the cruise lines was vastly different. Was this air travel the website was talking about? Who really knows. We can't always believe a website when it suits us.

[Smatth]

26 minutes ago, SwordBlazer Cruising said:

Unless any of us work for the cruise lines, we really do not 100% know the full story. We all finger point ( myself included-I try not too) but in this case this could be a situation where the website for public consumption said one thing, however the conversations back and fourth with the government by the cruise lines was vastly different. Was this air travel the website was talking about? Who really knows. We can't always believe a website when it suits us.

 

I agree with you, but the web site was the Treasury's...  And I kind of want to believe it.  At any rate, the corporate response was pathetic.  I am a CCL shareholder and Platinum on Carnival.  Their response really sours my perception of Carnival vis-a-vis their customer care protocols.